Archive for the ‘
Michael Bloomberg ’ Category

New York City lost its final appeal to limit the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces.

In a 20-page report, the New York State Court of Appeals issued its final decision on the Portion Cap Ruling. Justice Pigott wrote:

We hold that the New York City Board of Health, in adopting the “Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule,” exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority. By choosing among competing policy goals, without any legislative delegation or guidance, the Board engaged in law-making and thus infringed upon the legislative jurisdiction of the City Council of New York.

The Portion Cap Ruling, commonly known as the soda ban, was to restrict the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas and delis.

The decision is disappointing and a defeat to public health advocates urging the government to curb the sale of oversize sugary drinks thought to be a major contributor to America’s obesity crisis.

Dr. Mary Bassett, the commissioner of health for the city, issued the following statement:

Today’s ruling does not change the fact that sugary drink consumption is a key driver of the obesity epidemic, and we will continue to look for ways to stem the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes by seeking to limit the pernicious effects of aggressive and predatory marketing of sugary drinks and unhealthy foods.

Mayor Bill De Blasio also expressed his disappointment in the court’s decision. As written in Capital New York:

“We are extremely disappointed by today’s Court decision that prevents the city from implementing a sugary drink portion cap policy,” de Blasio said in a press release. “The negative effects of sugary drink over-consumption on New Yorkers’ health, particularly among low-income communities, are irrefutable.”

As a nutritionist and portion size advocate, I too was disappointed with the court’s decision.

Portion sizes have grown exponentially over the years and rates of obesity have skyrocketed. In the 1950s, a soda at McDonald’s was 7 ounces; today, the company sells a quart-size soda nearly five times larger than its original size. KFC sells a half-gallon size with nearly 800 calories.

From a consumer perspective, this was not about banning soda. This was about how much is reasonable for one person. There are a lot of factors that contribute to obesity. One very major one is the fact that what used to be a normal size is now called “mini.”

Indeed, we need to change our food environment if we want to reduce obesity rates and encourage consumer to select healthier food choices. That means selling smaller size portions of foods and drinks that provide no nutritional value. In my opinion, curbing the sizes of sugary drinks was certainly a good place to start.

I applaud the health department’s efforts and hope that we can all work together to promote a healthier food environment for our children to grow up in.

New York City became the first city to almost make supersize soda cups a thing of the past. But an appeals court issued a ruling on Tuesday that that the city’s health department exceeded its legal authority by trying to place a size limit on sugary beverages served in fast food restaurants and other eating establishments.

The proposed portion size cap was set to restrict the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 ounces in food establishments, including fast-food chains, restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, delis, and street carts. It would have included the now-typical 20-ounce soda bottle from the corner deli and most oversized fountain drinks available in fast-food establishments and movie theaters.

The beverage industry called the measure unfair and ineffective.

The city has promised an appeal. Indeed, as the city points out in the headlines of its press release: Obesity Kills More Than 5,000 New Yorkers Annually; Sugary Beverages are Key Driver of the Obesity Epidemic.

Since New York City’s ground-breaking limit on the portion size of sugary beverages was prevented from going into effect on March 12th, more than 2,000 New Yorkers have died from the effects of diabetes. Also during that time, the American Medical Association determined that obesity is a disease and the New England Journal of Medicine released a study showing the deadly, and irreversible, health impacts of obesity and Type 2 diabetes — both of which are disproportionately linked to sugary drink consumption. Today’s decision is a temporary setback, and we plan to appeal this decision as we continue the fight against the obesity epidemic.

I hope the city wins its appeal.

As a nutritionist and health activist, here are five reasons I support the mayor and city’s health department.

1. Sugar-sweetened beverages provide nothing but empty calories. Soda offers no nutrients and no health benefits. No one needs to drink more than a pint size of sugar water at one sitting.

2. The larger the cup, the more calories (and sugar) a drink contains. For example, while a small soda (16 ounces) at KFC contains 180 calories, the Mega Jug (64 ounces) contains nearly 800 calories — more than one-third of an entire day’s recommended calories for some people. It is no surprise that obesity and other diseases including diabetes have been linked with the consumption of soft drinks

3. While a 16-ounce soda was once considered large, today it is called small. It would be great if we can go back to more normal size cups. As I previously wrote, the portion sizes of soft drinks and other foods have grown considerably over time and so have our waistlines. The sizes of soft drinks have morphed into jugs and half-gallon containers large enough for a family of eight.

4. The portion size restriction is not a “ban” as many headlines call it. The city is not banning soda or telling consumers that they cannot drink soda. Rather, the portion size cap is calling attention to how much is considered a reasonable portion at one time.

5. And, finally, the 16 ounce size restriction is quite a reasonable size: It is A PINT size and double a standard Food and Drug Administration (FDA) serving size.

The New York City portion cap on sugar-sweetened drinks was back in court earlier this week. I attended the appeals hearing held at the state appellate court. The NYC health department argued against the ruling by Judge Milton Tingling that blocked the cap on sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces from being sold in food establishments including fast food establishments, delis, and other locations which get a letter grade. As reported in theNew York Times, the lawyer for the city was met with skepticism from the justices of the First Department of the Appellate Division. It is unclear when a ruling will be issued.

As I previously blogged on The Huffington Post and the NY Daily News, I support the portion-size cap on sugary beverages. In a nutshell, portion size matters and can help in the fight against obesity. As I illustrated in my book The Portion Teller Plan, portion sizes of sodas have increased considerably over the years. Large portions may contribute to obesity because they contain more calories than small portions. While a small soda (16 ounces) at KFC contains 180 calories, the Mega Jug (64 ounces) contains nearly 800 calories. Larger portions also encourage us to consume more and to underestimate our intake. Soda, in particular, offers up no positive health benefits and is pure sugar.

Now, a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that soda size limits may help in the fight against obesity. The study found that limiting the sale of oversized sodas and other sugar-sweetened beverages could affect 7.5 percent of Americans daily, have the greatest impact on overweight individuals, and would not discriminate against the poor.

The study found that about 60 percent of Americans consumed sugary drinks daily, but only 7.5 percent of them purchased “super-size” sugary drinks from an eatery on a given day. The rates, however, were somewhat higher for certain groups: 13.6 percent of overweight teens, 12.6 percent of overweight young adults aged 20 to 44 and 8.6 percent of overweight people in general. The investigators also found that low-income and high-income people were equally likely to buy large sugary drinks from restaurants, which challenges the criticism that a ban on the sale of these drinks at eateries discriminates against the poor.

I certainly do hope that the court considers this study when issuing a ruling. Obesity and diabetes are major public health problems in the city of New York as well as in other parts of the U.S., and limiting the sizes of sugar-sweetened drinks is certainly worth trying.

In the meantime, the NYC department of health launched a new ad campaign urging New Yorkers to pay attention to the high sugar content in energy drinks, sports drinks, sweetened teas, and fruit-flavored drinks. While these drinks sound “healthy,” many have more sugar than soda. A 20-ounce lemonade, for example, contains 260 calories and 67 grams of sugar. Sugar-sweetened drinks have been associated with weight gain and and an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

As the weather gets warmer and while we wait for a ruling from the appellate court, I urge us all to drink more water and pay attention to the sizes of our sugary beverages.

It has been a busy week in New York City surrounding discussions of Mayor Bloomberg’s portion-size restriction for sodas. Below is my blog post for Huffington Post on the topic. You can read it HERE.

I was pleased to participate in Mayor Bloomberg’s press event yesterday at Lucky’s Café on East 34th Street along with other public health activists. The mayor vowed that the city will appeal the ruling overturning the portion-size restriction for sugar-sweetened beverages that was set to go into effect. He also eloquently spoke about the health implications of consuming large sugary beverages for New Yorkers. The mayor mentioned that obesity is killing more than 5,000 New Yorkers annually and 100,000 people nationwide. Indeed, large portions of sugar-sweetened beverages are contributing to our obesity epidemic.

The proposed portion size cap was set to restrict the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 ounces in food establishments, including fast-food chains, restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, delis, and street carts. It would include the now-typical 20-ounce soda bottle from the corner deli and most oversized fountain drinks available in fast-food establishments and movie theaters. It would even include many “small” sodas served at such eateries.

The press release from Mayor Bloomberg’s office cites new research from the city showing a strong connection between the consumption of sugary beverages and obesity.

The release states that:

… neighborhoods with higher rates of consumption of sugary drinks tended to have higher obesity rates. Nine of the top 10 neighborhoods with the highest obesity rates city-wide were also the highest in sugary drink consumption. At the other end, the three least obese neighborhoods were also the lowest in sugary drink consumption.

From a nutritionist’s point of view, this makes perfect sense. Sugar-sweetened beverages are purely liquid calories, provide no nutrients, no health benefits, and contribute unnecessary calories to our diets. And, as I found in my research, portion sizes of soft drinks and other foods have grown considerably over time and so have our waistlines. The sizes of soft drinks have morphed into jugs and half-gallon containers large enough for a family of eight. In the 1950s, a Burger King “small” soda was 12 ounces and the “large” was 16 ounces. Today, its “small” is 20 ounces. In 1916, a Coca-Cola bottle was 6.5 ounces, and in the 1950s, a Coca-Cola ad advertised the 16-ounce size to be shared among 3 people. Today, many people complain that 16 ounces is too small. Indeed, our perception has shifted.

… the mayor of New York City is not banning the sale of soda. Nor is he telling consumers that they can’t drink soda. Rather, he is calling attention to how much should be considered a reasonable amount to drink at a time. And 16 ounces is certainly more than a reasonable — that is a pint-size worth of sugar water. I do not see the proposal as a ban, but rather as an attempt to reset the norm for how much drink constitutes an appropriate portion. This is a much needed proposal in an era of oversized portions.

“I am in support of the portion-size restriction on sugar-sweetened beverages,” said Lisa Young, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. “Large portion sizes of sugar sweetened beverages are a major contributor to the obesity epidemic. Capping the size of sugar-sweetened beverages is an excellent way to fight obesity. Large portions of soda contain many calories and absolutely no nutrients. No one should be drinking a 64 ounce (half gallon) of soda. A 16-ounce soda (a pint size) is certainly large enough for one person.”

But consumers will only buy small portions if the price is right or if the large sizes disappear. The price is rarely right for small portions, however. Manufacturers rarely charge half price for a half portion, as it has to cover its costs. And the cost of food is cheaper than most other costs such as rent, labor, and supplies.

As I wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Daily News back in September after the proposal was approved by the Board of Health:

Large portions contribute to obesity because they obviously contain more calories than small portions: A small soda (16 ounces) at KFC contains 180 calories, while the Mega Jug (64 ounces) contains nearly 800 calories — and is more than one-third of an entire day’s recommended calories for some people. Bigger portions also encourage us to consume more and to thus underestimate how much we are really eating and drinking. And it is the destitute who are most frequently the victims of the ills that come with fast-food consumption.

Given the enormous health implications of obesity in New York and elsewhere, capping the portion sizes of liquid calories devoid of nutrients is a terrific place to start.
The city did indeed file an appeal of Judge Tingling’s ruling. It is unclear how long it will take before a decision is reached. While I do hope that the decision is made in favor of the city, regardless of the outcome, Mayor Bloomberg and the city accomplished a great deal. The proposal to limit supersize sugary beverages set the stage for a national discussion on the contribution of our food environment — in particular, large portions of sugary beverages — to the obesity epidemic. And, we can do something about it!

I do hope that while we are waiting, restaurants and other eating establishments follow Lucky Café’s lead and voluntarily offer smaller sodas. We as consumers should also pay closer attention to the sizes of our food portions. We should think twice before buying the larger size, even if we get twice as much for just an extra quarter. And, in the end, we must remember that portion size matters.

As I write: “This campaign makes sense at a time when the debate about soaring medical costs has taken center stage in the presidential election. Obesity is estimated to cost $190 billion a year.… The mayor’s proposal does nothing more than swing the pendulum back in favor of more modest food portions.

Those portions have increased steadily over the years, so much so that we have grown accustomed to oversize portions and have come to expect them.

Portion sizes are now two to five times larger than they were in the 1950s.”

.
Just how big have food portions become? The timeline below, which is based on my research in my book The Portion Teller Plan, highlights how our frame of reference has shifted.

As I wrote in the NY Daily News, “Bloomberg is not banning the sale of soda. Nor is he telling consumers that they can’t drink soda. Rather, he is calling attention to how much is a reasonable amount to drink at a time. Sixteen ounces is certainly more than reasonable — a full pint of sugar water. Instead of viewing this as a ban, let’s see it as an attempt to reset the norm for how much soda truly constitutes an appropriate portion.

.
It is now time to return to the more reasonable sizes of the past, when obesity rates were much lower. Given the health consequences and enormous cost of our obesity epidemic, restricting large sizes of unhealthy sugary beverages is an excellent place to begin.

One week before the Board of Health is schedule to vote on Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to limit the sizes of oversized drinks, Weight Watchers and other diet companies including The South Beach Diet, Jenny Craig and Bob Greene of The Best Life Diet are supporting the proposal.

As reported in the New York Times, David Burwick, the president of Weight Watchers North America said, “There’s been a lot of hand-wringing about obesity but very little action.”

As reported in Metro NY, Mayor Bloomberg said “As the size of sugary drinks has grown, so have our waistlines, and so have diabetes and heart disease.” And, Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley added that “In a city with large sizes of high-calorie snack foods and beverages at your fingertips around the clock, it is no wonder many New Yorkers struggle to maintain a healthy weight.”

I could not agree more!

Here are 5 good reasons:

1. Portion sizes have exploded in recent years.

2. Large portions contain more calories than small portions.

3. Large portions encourage us to eat more.

4. Large portions encourage us to underestimate how much we are eating.

5. Sugary sweetened beverages are empty calories and have no nutrition benefits to offer.
The Board of Health is scheduled to vote on the ban on Thursday, Sept. 13 and would go into effect six months after, on March 13.

Oversized beverages, including 7-Eleven’s Big Gulp and just about all medium and large size beverages sold at fast-food establishments, may no longer be available to consumers in New York City if Mayor Bloomberg’s ambitious proposal to limit the portion sizes of sweetened beverages is passed by the city’s board of health in June. In fact, the “small” soda at McDonald’s may soon become the largest option available. And even Burger King’s 22-ounce “small” would be banned. According to the mayor, it is time for food eateries to start shaving down their portions.

The proposed ban would restrict the sale of sodas and other sugary drinks that are larger than 16 fluid ounces in food establishments such as restaurants, movie theaters, sports arenas, delis, and street carts. It would include the popular 20-ounce soda bottle from the corner deli and, of course, oversized fountain drinks available in fast-food establishments and movie theaters. The ban would not affect diet drinks, fruit juice, dairy-based drinks such as milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages. Nor would it affect beverages sold in grocery stores.

It is no surprise that the beverage industry is up in arms about the proposal, and feels that the city’s department of health is unfairly singling out soda. Indeed, the ban would affect the sales of their product. According to the New York Times, the New York City Beverage Association criticized the city’s proposal:

“The New York City health department’s unhealthy obsession with attacking soft drinks is again pushing them over the top,” the industry spokesman, Stefan Friedman, said. “It’s time for serious health professionals to move on and seek solutions that are going to actually curb obesity.”

According to the New York City Department of Health, sugary, sweetened beverages are a major contributor to the current obesity epidemic both in New York City and in the rest of the country. In a phone interview, Dr. Thomas Farley, New York City’s health commissioner, indicated that the extra calories from sweetened beverages have indeed contributed substantially to rising obesity rates throughout our country.

This is not the first time the New York City Department of Health has tried to help us trim our portions. In January, they launched a portion-size education campaign — “Cut Your Portions. Cut Your Risk” — featuring ads on subways encouraging New Yorkers to trim their portions to reduce their risk of health problems. As I previously wrote, the city’s health department has been very proactive in fighting obesity and other public health issues.

So, what should we make of this new proposal to ban oversized sugary drinks?

This campaign makes sense at a time when food portions have increased and so have rates of obesity.

As a researcher tracking portion size trends, food portions have increased steadily over the years, and so have we. We have grown accustomed to oversized portions, and we have come to expect them. My research found that portion sizes are now two to five times larger than they were in the 1950s. When McDonald’s opened, for example, the only size soda available was 7 ounces. When Burger King first opened, the company offered a 12-ounce small and a 16-ounce large. Boy have we grown! Burger King’s small is now 22 ounces and its large is 42 ounces. I think it is time to return to those more reasonable sizes.

Large portions may contribute to obesity in several ways. Large portions contain more calories than small portions. For example, an 8-ounce soda contains 100 calories, while a 64-ounce Double Gulp without too much ice contains nearly 800 calories. Large portions also encourage us to consume more and to underestimate how much we are really eating. Sugar-sweetened beverages, in particular, provide no nutritional value whatsoever. As a registered dietitian counseling clients on healthy eating, I advise eating a small portion of foods low in nutritional value.

If food companies do not sell large sizes, consumers will not buy them. Of course, you can get around the ban by purchasing several drinks. Indeed, four 16-ounce sodas would amount to just one 64-ounce Double Gulp, but it’s going to cost a lot more money. And will consumers want to pay for them?

Part of the portion problem is that the current price structure encourages us to buy bigger sizes. All too often, the bigger the portions, the less we pay per ounce. At a local 7-Eleven, the cost of the smallest size available (20 ounces) is roughly five cents per ounce, but the largest size (64 ounces) goes down to just two cents per ounce. It is hard to resist such a bargain.

As an educator and clinician, I would absolutely continue to advocate for better education and public health campaigns. I would urge such campaigns to begin at home and continue in the schools for our children to receive training on nutrition and health — in particular, on the relationship between calories and portion sizes. But education has not proven to be the answer thus far. Research looking into the effectiveness of the posting calories on menu boards has not been very promising. The health department found that 15 percent of patrons improved their choices by looking at calorie counts on menu boards. Indeed, we need to take this a step further. And Mayor Bloomberg is taking action.

Given the health consequences and enormous cost of our country’s obesity epidemic, it is time to return eating less. And banning the large sizes of unhealthy sugar-sweetened beverages is a good place to begin. The city has unveiled other such public health campaigns, and it appears that they may actually be working. Smoking has declined and so have rates of childhood obesity in New York City. I applaud the health department for its efforts in fighting to improve the public health of New Yorkers and hope other health departments around the country follow New York’s lead.